1 more time for expert opinion PLEASE HELP

[taghans]

OK, I found 1 more radiant to compare with the original I chose (thanks to everyone) anyway here they are:

The 1st (Original Stone)

Shape: Radiant
Carat weight: 1.98
Cut: Premium
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 64.9
Table: 62
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: M-STK
Culet: NONE
Fluorescence: NONE
Measurements: 8.25*6.72*4.36

Price (lowest so far is $14,600)

Stone 2: Looks good on paper (concerned a bit about the increase in depth, but table is larger and the .08 decrease in size should be minimal to the naked eye. Also, The downgrade in quality VS1 to VS2 is a concern but the color increases from G to F)

Shape: Radiant
Carat weight: 1.9
Cut: ?
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 66.8
Table: 68
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: TN-M
Culet: NONE
Fluorescence: NONE
Measurements: 8.27*6.15*4.11
Price $13,386 (online w/out any negotiations w/ any jeweler)

What do you experts out there think? I am going to get this exact ring and do not know if I should go too rectangular that is another concern of mine.

(the ring can be seen on www.karagosian.com only radiant ring on the site w/ tapered traps on the side)

PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JulieN]

taghans, by the numbers, they look fine. nothing glaringly wrong.

An Ideal Scope picture would be most helpful.

 

[taghans]

Ok, well do you think that they would look similar to the naked eye size wise (as ct. weight does not determine size and thier specs look rather similar)Also, do you think that it would be in my best interest to go for the 2nd stone which is $1,300 cheaper !

 

[JulieN]

No, I do not think it is in your best interest to buy a fancy stone without some kind of direct light performanace assessment.

Have you seen the first one in person?

 

[kcoursolle]

I agree with JulieN on these, nothing glaringly wrong...but hard to tell if they are winners without seeing them. The second is a bit deep, but really not that bad at all.

I love love love your setting idea!!! perfect!

Before you buy, I would get the vendors to email you pics of these stones and display them here. That would help quite a bit to view the symmetry, etc.

As far as the second being more rectangular, this is personal preference...again the picture would help here in helping you decide.

 

[taghans]

I have not seen any in person and am waiting for the wholesalers to get back from vacation. The jewelwers said they are willing to get the stones in for me and provide me with detailed photos, Ideal-Scope Images, and a Sarin report. I will try and post them when they come in (I am not having an easy time posting photos to my posts?) Anyway, based on the specs what do you guys think looks the best....You are concerned about the depth....Hmmmm Y? I like the fact that the dimensions are almost similar and probably look the same size to the naked eye when mounted + I would save $1,300.

I love the ring as well it is unique and looks like a million bucks!

Thanks!

All your info is greatly appreciated

 

[MrsT]

Taghans:

Just want to say thanks for giving me hope. I''ve been trying to find a diamond with the same characteristics as your diamonds listed here and trying to stay in the same budget.
I was ready to give up but perhaps there is a chance I will find what I''m looking for.

Are radiants the same price per carat as round brilliants?

Hope you guys don''t mind me chiming in here. I''ve been kind of down about this whole thing.

Good luck with your decision and post pictures when your get it.

Mrs. T

 

[JulieN]

stone 2 is more rectangular. that means that the depth will artificially appear higher, because of the way depth is measured.

Mrs. T, rounds are significantly more expensive/ct.

 

[taghans]

Hmmm so the shape may be more rectangular and depth% higher but it may look exactly the same as a box w/ lower depth %?

Radiants are cheaper (1 of the cheapest) less waste when cutting.

Just don''t steal my stones

I believe the radiant is the most beautiful of all stones (I also like boxey furniture IKEA and cars LandRovers, Honda Preludes etc...)

Good Luck this is a great place to get expert opinions and info!

 

[kcoursolle]

Hi again,

For posting pics, click on the attach file botton and follow the instructions. If it doesn''t work there are two things that might be going wrong. The picture could be too big. You would have to reduce the picture in photoshop or some other program to 600 pixels or less..I think?? Also, another problem might be that the picture does not have a unique name. If there is another picture posted on this site with the same name it will not post. Rename and resave your photo with a unique name such as rtyrtuse843 or something weird so that nobody else has it. If that still doesn''t work, click on the contact admin botton and send them your pics and they will post it for you.

As far as the depth, it''s probably going to look fine...but a greater depth means loss in surface area and the diamond will appear slightly smaller face up than it''s carat weight...but this diamond is not excessively deep, just a little deep.

Send us the images when you have them and we''ll have a better idea if these stones are killer or not.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 7/6/2006 4:03:47 PM
Author: taghans
Hmmm so the shape may be more rectangular and depth% higher but it may look exactly the same as a box w/ lower depth %?

If we measured depth% as depth in mm/ sqrt (face up area) which is comparable to a perfectly square stone then stone one would have a depth of 58.5, and stone 2 would be 57.6

However, actually cutting a square would require more depth. I'm only trying to show the bias against more rectangular stones.

The first one is 9% bigger than the second one, a significant size. Funny thing is that the first one is also priced 9% more (a coincidence.)

 

[taghans]

Julie:
Thanks for the info I think the 1st stone may be the best for me but I will not determine that until I recieve photos, Iedal-Scope images and a Sarin repor (for which you guys can evaluate!)

 

[JulieN]

Smart move. I wonder if that vendor would have ASET capabilities?

 

[taghans]

ASET?

 

[coda72]

I personally don''t think ASET or IS images are useful for radiants. Pictures of the stones themselves may be more helpful, but really they have to be seen in person to make the decision. It would be great if you could look at both stones in person and compare them to see which one you prefer. If you can''t do that, I would order the first one you picked out, and see if you like it. If not, send it back and get the other one to see if you like that one.

 

[taghans]

OK guys here I have attached the Sarin Report and some photos (may be too big so I will have to post multiple times). This is for the Shape: Radiant
Carat weight: 1.98
Cut: Premium
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Certificate: GIA
Depth: 64.9
Table: 62
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Good
Girdle: M-STK
Culet: NONE
Fluorescence: NONE
Measurements: 8.25*6.72*4.36
Price (lowest so far is $14,600)

 

[taghans]

What does everyone think is it worth the $$$

 

[taghans]

More Photo(s)

 

[taghans]

Another outdoor pic.

 

[taghans]

Another Ideal Scope Image....I will try to attach the Sarin report next.

 

[taghans]

Here is the Sarin Report.

What do you guys(experts) think? Is it a worthwile stone?

 

[taghans]

And Finally Here is the Ring the stone would be going in....This is the Exact ring I am looking at!


Expertise Needed!

Thanks SOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!

 

[coda72]

Why doesn''t the Sarin match the GIA specs? Are all of these pictures and idealscope images for one stone?

 

[taghans]

I was not aware they did not match up? What specifically? These are what the Jeweler provided all info is for the same stone 1.98 ct radiant.

Thanks!

 

[taghans]

Here is the GIA cert....hmm table and depth % are different!

 

[taghans]

Ok, I have attached a Sarin report that the jeweler provided me. I am not sure why the specs change after they ran another Sarin report, should not the specs be identical no matter how many times the Sarin machine is ran?

opinions needed as this is a bit weird.

 

[coda72]

Well, the Sarin will have a little variation. I just thought the first Sarin ran was a little too far off. But, honestly this looks like a good diamond to me. The numbers are good and the pics of the stone are good. It''s definitely worth taking a chance on this. Does the vendor have a good return policy?

 

[taghans]

Are you basing the reccomendation on the 1st or 2nd Sarin report? Well the return would be for the stone and not the ring. I will have to request the information from them. Thanks I like the stone but just have a question regarding the 1st pic and the blemish that is visible on the left center of the stone. I just wanted to see what power the photo was taken under becasue if its a VS1 this should not be noticable even under 10x.

 

[kcoursolle]

Taghans, I''m not sure the why sarin doesn''t match. However, it does appear to be the same stone. I would inquire about this just to make sure the stone pictured is the same stone you are going to be getting.

As far as the pictures go, I think this will be a very pretty stone. It looks well proportioned and has personality in the sunlight. The idealscope picture showed light leakage, but this is normal and this radiant performs fine compared to other radiants. They just don''t get the same light return as a well-cut round on ideal scope images. I agree with coda that this stone is definitely worth taking a chance on if you have a reasonable return policy just in case it doesn''t perform well in person.

As far as the tiny white blemish, don''t worry about it. I think it''s unlikely you are going to be able to see that with your eyes alone.

 

[taghans]

I also like the photos and at $14,600 It looks like a nice buy.